One thing that is quite clear from reading the posts and threads in
this forum is that MATRIX needs to offer TWO distinct versions/scenarios
for WITP to keep people happy. On one hand, they have the "Historians"
that want as much realism/accuracy as possible in the game, even if
it means playing the Japanese Side is going to be pretty depressing for
the participant. On the other are the "Gamers" who are willing to forgo
some reality/history if it makes for a more even and exciting contest.
The two are not mutualy exclusive in one game. If 2by3 developes
the system and basic scenarios to be as accurate and historical as is
possible, then it should be a relatively simple matter to offer an
"alternate history" version of each that simply modifies the Historical
Scenario according to a fixed storyline. It's just a matter of altering
the starting forces/reinforcements to match the "alternate history".
I'm not reccommending a total break with reality.., just one which
stretches credulity and assumes that in the early 1930's the Japanese
Government, Army, Navy, and Industrialists reach a consensus that a
war is inevitable and begin working TOGETHER to prepare for it. Simply
removing the infighting and petty bickering between these factions
would have made a big improvement in Japan's readiness. Toss in a
program of rationalization for military production, and an effort to
increase strategic stockpiles while reducing the reliance on foriegn
shipping, and you end up with a Japan that is much more "fun" to play.
Keep the War in China and all the other historical actions so that
the scenarios have the same base, but in "alternate history" production
is increased, rationalized, and simplified. Improved pilot schools provide
a larger flow of compatantly trained aircrews, the Navy gives up it's
hugely expensive "Super-Battleship" program in favor of additional CA's,
DD's, and CV's, The Army and Navy cooperate on weapons, equipment,
and common usage wherever possible, and industry modernizes it's
plants to improve labor/materials usage and costs. All this could have
allowed a 10-15% increase in "force pools" available at the start of the
War, plus (and more importantly) an increase in the quantity and quality
of the flow of reinforcements and replacements.
By no stretch of reality can you make Japan into an industrial super-
power like the US. But you could certainly at least DOUBLE it's historic
output during the 1st half of the war, which would keep it "competative"
(and therefor "fun) for a year longer at least. This would allow the folks
who want "play balance" rather than absolute historical reality a set of
scenarios they might have a chance of "winning". And the alternate
"Whole War" scenario wouldn't be so depressing to contemplate. Good
play and a bit of luck might see the Japanese still clinging to their "inner
defense perimeter in the summer of 1945. And without the scenarios
being so far "out of whack" as to produce utter disdane from the
"Historians". And after (if ever) both groups have exhausted the games
possibilities in their own view, they can always try out the other version
for a new perspective.
Anyway, it's a possibility which could bring an end to a lot of the
disputes in the forumn itself.., and maybe allow more concentration on
improving the basic game. That's my 2 cents worth anyway. Who knows, maybe it's even a nickle's worth.
NEEDED---Two Games
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
What you're suggesting was done in a huge board game developed and published years ago by Simulations Publications Inc. They released two games on WWII. One dealing with the European Theater and the other with the Pacific Theater. You were able to tweak production anyway you wished. The production aspect of the game mechanics allowed the players to spend or invest limited production points in order to introduce weapons systems much earlier than historically occured. For example Me262's and Panther tanks could be introduced much sooner if the player invested the appropriate production points. Of course by spending these point to accelerate a given weapon it would limit what you had available to produce currently. I think by allowing the player to make strategic R&D decisions would make WIP very interesting.
-
Tristanjohn
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
- Location: Daly City CA USA
- Contact:
HitMan52 wrote:What you're suggesting was done in a huge board game developed and published years ago by Simulations Publications Inc. They released two games on WWII. One dealing with the European Theater and the other with the Pacific Theater. You were able to tweak production anyway you wished. The production aspect of the game mechanics allowed the players to spend or invest limited production points in order to introduce weapons systems much earlier than historically occured. For example Me262's and Panther tanks could be introduced much sooner if the player invested the appropriate production points. Of course by spending these point to accelerate a given weapon it would limit what you had available to produce currently. I think by allowing the player to make strategic R&D decisions would make WIP very interesting.
Except it isn't just about "production points." It's about concepts into ideas into plans into implementation into at last production of real-world product. If we followed the lead of SPI the United States might just as well develop the Atomic Bomb and lay ruin to the Japanese Home Islands in 1943.
Is that what you want? This describes a "fun" game?
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
Fun Police
Hi, While I think you are perhaps the worlds leading authority on what you consider fun, I wonder when you were appointed the decider of what other people consider fun. I like mustard on hotdogs and ketchsup on hamburgers is that ok?
I must of missed those SPI games.
I must of missed those SPI games.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY...
I'm very familiar with the SPI Games you refer to. WAR IN EUROPEHitMan52 wrote:What you're suggesting was done in a huge board game developed and published years ago by Simulations Publications Inc. They released two games on WWII. One dealing with the European Theater and the other with the Pacific Theater. You were able to tweak production anyway you wished. The production aspect of the game mechanics allowed the players to spend or invest limited production points in order to introduce weapons systems much earlier than historically occured. For example Me262's and Panther tanks could be introduced much sooner if the player invested the appropriate production points. Of course by spending these point to accelerate a given weapon it would limit what you had available to produce currently. I think by allowing the player to make strategic R&D decisions would make WIP very interesting.
was an outgrowth of WAR IN THE EAST, and not really a very good
game because it was tied to the WITE combat results tables. Not that
it wasn't "fun" to play..., but it tended to feel more like WWI than WWII.
WAR IN THE PACIFIC was better, especially when played double-blind
with a moderator as pioneered by the National Monstergaming Society.
The production aspect of both tended to be a weak point as it ignored
manpower as a factor and could lead to some rather bizzare confronta-
tions by the later stages of the games. But it was "fun", and gave the
"players" something new to play with.
I was NOT proposing a "freely designed" production system. From
the words of the play-testers, WITP already has some "choices" in that
respect---and as I don't know what the system will look like I couldn't
propose structural changes. I was reccomending that the DESIGNERS
would first do the game to meet the expectations of the "History Crowd"
as best they can---and then go bact to the same scenarios and alter
the Japanese Forces according to a "best Japan could have ever hoped for" alternate history such as I described. This would give players a
second set of scenarios in which the Japanese "force pools" were a bit
larger and better in quality, and their "replacement/reinforcement pool"
offered a larger and better trained "flow". I'm NOT suggesting that they
be free to build anything they want---just that the second set of
scenarios featured a force structure based on an EXTRODINARILY
UNLIKELY, but PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE set of "force levels".
During the actual war, events finally forced both Germany and Japan
into the kind of "Industrial Rationalization" I'm speaking of. As a result,
even though their resources were strained and dwindling, 1944 was the
best production year for both. Now the kind of rational thinking that was
eventually to accomplish this was unlikely during the 30's because really
rational leaders wouldn't have started the war. And neither of these
nations had the managerial experiance to really and fully impliment a
"mass production" economy like the US (name me any other power in the
war who ever "mass produced" 10,000 ton ships). But a lot could have
been done to improve the Japanese situation before the war. I mean
simple things like getting the Army and the Navy to agree on a common
voltage for their aircraft electrical systems.., which would have allowed
for interchangability of common parts and simplification of production.
Multiply that times a few hundred similarly stupid situations and you
produce a solid increase in production from the same labor pool and
resources. Or telling the Japanese "big gun" faction that they couldn't
have their outrageously expensive super-battleships, which required
all kinds of specialized and costly unique construction, in favor of get-
ting a larger program of already designed classes of ships. More of
the Shokaku's, Tone's, and the latest DD's---or maybe some decent
ASW craft.
VERY UNLIKELY, I agree. But not physically impossible. And it would
provide those fans who want a more "even" game a set of scenarios they
could "get into". No stretch of physical reality is going to enable the
Japanese to successfully invade the US, or probably Australia or India.
But it could give them the means to extend the fighting in the area
covered by UV on a more equal footing. Japan will never be able to
mass produce Liberty Ships, Victory Ships, CVE's and the like. Nor will
they ever lay down Fleet Carriers or Light Cruisers in classes of 20,30,
or forty. But they could have produced a larger flow of aircraft and
pilots; they could have forgone some of their rediculously oversized
submarines in favor of some simple, robust, and reasonably equipped
ASW ships. They might have even stolen or bought the design of a
decent Machine-gun for their infantry, or a reasonable AT gun. That's
what I was proposing.
SPI
Hi, I really liked SPI's WIE and WIP Games. But in WIE there was no research because their was no equipment. The air war was with air points. Only the Germans and Russians had production. They were both limited to the number of manpower and production points they could use.
The Western Allies just followed a reinforcement chart. (The U-boats could effect this somewhat)
WIP production was very interesting. Aircraft were used by type and produced in "blocks" You could not just produce a certain type you had to produce all the types within a "block"
WITP production in not completly player dictated. The Japanese are going to get the ships they historically got. When they arrive will depend somewhat on the player. Naval shipyards produce the points that move the ships along towards arrival. You can halt production on a ship or you can accelerate production of a ship. But you can't really start a new ship. USN ships arrive when they arrive. (Many historical arrival dates of USN ships represent their being accelerated. I think some of the BB and CV were more then a year ahead of schedule)
The most important thing for the Japanese player is to keep the production system supplied with resource and oil. (without these his shipyard will stop producing build points and his ships will stop moving forward toward completion)
The Western Allies just followed a reinforcement chart. (The U-boats could effect this somewhat)
WIP production was very interesting. Aircraft were used by type and produced in "blocks" You could not just produce a certain type you had to produce all the types within a "block"
WITP production in not completly player dictated. The Japanese are going to get the ships they historically got. When they arrive will depend somewhat on the player. Naval shipyards produce the points that move the ships along towards arrival. You can halt production on a ship or you can accelerate production of a ship. But you can't really start a new ship. USN ships arrive when they arrive. (Many historical arrival dates of USN ships represent their being accelerated. I think some of the BB and CV were more then a year ahead of schedule)
The most important thing for the Japanese player is to keep the production system supplied with resource and oil. (without these his shipyard will stop producing build points and his ships will stop moving forward toward completion)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
When it comes to “what if” I have a different definition.
You point out that the Japanese might have prepared for war sooner but what if the US had done so instead?
My definition of “what if” is more like:
General/Admiral “Y” wanted to achieve something and his staff provided 3 plans. He chose plan “A”. But what if he had chosen plan “B”?
This could be at any level from the general staff right down to the front line.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Victory conditions:
Some players might refuse to play as the Japanese simply because they know they will lose.
In UV this is a real fear.
But the real reason is that if the Japanese take most of the map on the first 6 months, the allies have 13 months to take it back again.
And if the Japanese do not hold those bases at the end of the game they get no victory points.
Example: Take Noumea on day 14, hold it for 18 months and lose it with 14 days remaining – the allies can supply Noumea and the Japanese gain NO victory points
The poor victory conditions are a weakness in the game.
You point out that the Japanese might have prepared for war sooner but what if the US had done so instead?
My definition of “what if” is more like:
General/Admiral “Y” wanted to achieve something and his staff provided 3 plans. He chose plan “A”. But what if he had chosen plan “B”?
This could be at any level from the general staff right down to the front line.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Victory conditions:
Some players might refuse to play as the Japanese simply because they know they will lose.
In UV this is a real fear.
But the real reason is that if the Japanese take most of the map on the first 6 months, the allies have 13 months to take it back again.
And if the Japanese do not hold those bases at the end of the game they get no victory points.
Example: Take Noumea on day 14, hold it for 18 months and lose it with 14 days remaining – the allies can supply Noumea and the Japanese gain NO victory points
The poor victory conditions are a weakness in the game.
Noumea
Hi, I know what you mean but Lunga is a better example. If the Japanese take Noumea and hold it on Jan 1 1943 they win the game then and there (Auto victory) So if they capture it on day 14 they have to hold it for around 230 days and game over (meanwhile no SOPAC reinforcements will arrive)
But I understand what you are saying. If they hold Lunga for 614 turns
and lose it on Dec 31 1943 they get no points for it. (Directly) The will likely have scored a boatload of points by holding that long and flying Betties from the airfield.
Many a team has held the lead only to lose in the last seconds of the 4th quarter or bottom of the 9th inning.
In WITP victory is going to be hard for the Japanese. (For the USA and allies one way will be forcing surrender of Japan.) But how to set possible (although difficult) conditions to declare Japan the victor?
I think to begin with the Japanese player in WITP will have to dramatically
do better then the Japanese did. Where in UV bases only score for the side that holds them at the end I think certain bases in WITP should begin scoring points for the Japanese on certain dates.
Since really the game is about the Japanese players relation to history
the game only needs to assign geographical VP to the Japanese. The farther a base from Japan the sooner it begins scoring points. So a base like Noumea would score points for Japan right from the start but a base like Siapan would not begin scoring until sometime in 1944.
Someone would have to work out the historical "scores" for each side. And at the end of the game you would just compare the current score to the historical score to work out the victory results.
Perhaps the game could have a "End War" button so players could stop a game at any point and get a relative score. (Japanese players would still have to out produce history to win.)
If Japan surrenders she loses the game no matter what the score.
If Japan does not surrender but does not match the historic Japanese score that would be a draw.
If the Japanese player can avoid surrender and out score the historic Japanese by 1.5 she gets a marginal
If by 2.0 or more a decisive.
These are merely ideas for possible victory condition for WITP. I don't think they have been decided yet. (In smaller scenarios it goes by score)
But I understand what you are saying. If they hold Lunga for 614 turns
and lose it on Dec 31 1943 they get no points for it. (Directly) The will likely have scored a boatload of points by holding that long and flying Betties from the airfield.
Many a team has held the lead only to lose in the last seconds of the 4th quarter or bottom of the 9th inning.
In WITP victory is going to be hard for the Japanese. (For the USA and allies one way will be forcing surrender of Japan.) But how to set possible (although difficult) conditions to declare Japan the victor?
I think to begin with the Japanese player in WITP will have to dramatically
do better then the Japanese did. Where in UV bases only score for the side that holds them at the end I think certain bases in WITP should begin scoring points for the Japanese on certain dates.
Since really the game is about the Japanese players relation to history
the game only needs to assign geographical VP to the Japanese. The farther a base from Japan the sooner it begins scoring points. So a base like Noumea would score points for Japan right from the start but a base like Siapan would not begin scoring until sometime in 1944.
Someone would have to work out the historical "scores" for each side. And at the end of the game you would just compare the current score to the historical score to work out the victory results.
Perhaps the game could have a "End War" button so players could stop a game at any point and get a relative score. (Japanese players would still have to out produce history to win.)
If Japan surrenders she loses the game no matter what the score.
If Japan does not surrender but does not match the historic Japanese score that would be a draw.
If the Japanese player can avoid surrender and out score the historic Japanese by 1.5 she gets a marginal
If by 2.0 or more a decisive.
These are merely ideas for possible victory condition for WITP. I don't think they have been decided yet. (In smaller scenarios it goes by score)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
MISSING THE POINT
Most of the respondents are missing the point of the thread. I don't
care how you determine "victory", or how Matrix sets up the "Victory
Points". It's totally immaterial to the suggestion I was making. Myself,
I prefer Jack Radey's definition that "If one of you kicked the other all
over the map, you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." I think VP's
cause a lot of non-sense in tactics and strategy as players struggle to
"win" the game rather than the campaign. But I'm sure MATRIX will give
the game a set of "victory conditions" for those players who like to count
VP's.
My proposal was for an alternate OB for the Japanese Side for the
Game. So that every major scenario could have an "Historical" version
AND a more balanced "non-Historical, but possible" version. So those
who want only to "recreate history" could play their version of the
scenarios---and those who seek more "even competition" could use
the alternate version.
Version A would have the exact historical OB's and Reinforcements.
The Japanese Players could look forward to a real CHALLENGE in trying
to "eak out a win" with the actual forces from the campaign and all the
historic problems the Japanese had. Version B would give the Japanese
the benefit of having made every right choice for many years before the
war started. The Japanese Player's would have a stronger (non-historic)
OB and better quality and quantity of reinforcements. He's still going to
be the "weaker side" by 1943---but less so and with more "stuff" on hand
to try and combat the Allies with. A more even and "fun" game---but
with no claim to historical accuracy. That is what I was talking about.
care how you determine "victory", or how Matrix sets up the "Victory
Points". It's totally immaterial to the suggestion I was making. Myself,
I prefer Jack Radey's definition that "If one of you kicked the other all
over the map, you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." I think VP's
cause a lot of non-sense in tactics and strategy as players struggle to
"win" the game rather than the campaign. But I'm sure MATRIX will give
the game a set of "victory conditions" for those players who like to count
VP's.
My proposal was for an alternate OB for the Japanese Side for the
Game. So that every major scenario could have an "Historical" version
AND a more balanced "non-Historical, but possible" version. So those
who want only to "recreate history" could play their version of the
scenarios---and those who seek more "even competition" could use
the alternate version.
Version A would have the exact historical OB's and Reinforcements.
The Japanese Players could look forward to a real CHALLENGE in trying
to "eak out a win" with the actual forces from the campaign and all the
historic problems the Japanese had. Version B would give the Japanese
the benefit of having made every right choice for many years before the
war started. The Japanese Player's would have a stronger (non-historic)
OB and better quality and quantity of reinforcements. He's still going to
be the "weaker side" by 1943---but less so and with more "stuff" on hand
to try and combat the Allies with. A more even and "fun" game---but
with no claim to historical accuracy. That is what I was talking about.
Editor
Hi, The current WITP editor is worlds better then the current UV editor. There will be hundreds if not thousands of player created scenarios within a year of WITP being released. I expect there will be people who nothing but use the editor.
With the editor the Japanese player (or Allied) can create ships that never existed, aircraft that never flew and landunits that were never raised.
Prior to playing a game both players can exchange ideas on changes they want and then have them edited into their game. (once a game begins it can not be edited so they are safe from that)
With the editor the Japanese player (or Allied) can create ships that never existed, aircraft that never flew and landunits that were never raised.
Prior to playing a game both players can exchange ideas on changes they want and then have them edited into their game. (once a game begins it can not be edited so they are safe from that)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
TRUE ENOUGH, BUT...
The problem is that no two of them will be alile, and almost all willMogami wrote:Hi, The current WITP editor is worlds better then the current UV editor. There will be hundreds if not thousands of player created scenarios within a year of WITP being released. I expect there will be people who nothing but use the editor.
With the editor the Japanese player (or Allied) can create ships that never existed, aircraft that never flew and landunits that were never raised.
Prior to playing a game both players can exchange ideas on changes they want and then have them edited into their game. (once a game begins it can not be edited so they are safe from that)
be done by "enthusiasts" with some very personel (and often totally
unreal) ideas of what needs to be changed. An official "What-if"
scenario allows game enthusiasts to compare results without getting
into "apples and oranges". It also provides for "carry-over" between
various "Version B" small scenarios, as they will all come from the same
"story-line". I'm sure we'll see lots of variants with the Japs having
Me-262's and all sorts of other totally unreal non-sense. It would be
nice to have an alternative set of scenarios that at least made sense
between themwelves.
Scenarios
Hi, You can do what ever scenarios you like. People complain about offical things just as much as unoffical things. When you think you have a good scenario that does what you think it should. Just send the files to who ever asks for them. (These type scenarios are often kept on fan web sites.)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
I UNDERSTAND.
YOUR vote is that an "Official" set of "what-if's" is not needed andMogami wrote:Hi, You can do what ever scenarios you like. People complain about offical things just as much as unoffical things. When you think you have a good scenario that does what you think it should. Just send the files to who ever asks for them. (These type scenarios are often kept on fan web sites.)
that everyone should just "make up their own". Fine. That's one for and
one against as it stands now.
I would like to know, with a lot of playing time involved, and bragging
rights attached, just how many gaming buddies do you have that can
agree on who's made-up scenario to play? Most gamers I know are to
some degree competative. I've tried improving the historical accuracy
of several things over the years, and always ended up fielding a series
of complaints that "this favors one side or the other". I've found that
any varient with an "official" stamp is much easier to find players for.
By the way, I'd asked in another thread if you might be interested
in playing a game of WITP with me when it comes out. Would you?
my vote
Hi, Sorry I didn't know I was voting. Scenarios can take anywhere from a few hours to a few months to set up. Depending on how long and how much of the map you use.
I almost think that every scenario already needs 3 versions.
1 for human versus human and 1 for each AI (human versus Japanese Ai Human versus Allied AI)
Currently in the works are 3 long scenarios
Dec 41 start
May 42 start
May 43 Start
2 UV type scenarios (Coral Sea and the complete May 42-Dec 43 South Pacific)
1 late War start.
And I'm sure there will be more. What I was trying to say is that it is a lot of work to add scenarios. And no matter how many Matrix/2by3 does there will still be scenarios that people want. There will also be people who learn the editor and have a good time designing "What if Scenarios"
I'd bet there are people you just post what you want and they'll do all the work. Thats all. The more defined you can make a scenario the more likely someone will create it for you. But no matter what no one will be left out. They may have to do some work themselves.
The easiest way to do a scenario is to load one into the editor, save as "your scenario name" and then edit this save. Hopefully a lot of the work will carry over (Ship and unit data bases)
None of the offical scenarios are complete yet. But as the OB's become more solid future scenarios get easier to do. And then there are always people who have scources they prefer that might differ from the ones that create offical scenarios. So these people might use the offical scenario only they do a little pre game editing first.
I almost think that every scenario already needs 3 versions.
1 for human versus human and 1 for each AI (human versus Japanese Ai Human versus Allied AI)
Currently in the works are 3 long scenarios
Dec 41 start
May 42 start
May 43 Start
2 UV type scenarios (Coral Sea and the complete May 42-Dec 43 South Pacific)
1 late War start.
And I'm sure there will be more. What I was trying to say is that it is a lot of work to add scenarios. And no matter how many Matrix/2by3 does there will still be scenarios that people want. There will also be people who learn the editor and have a good time designing "What if Scenarios"
I'd bet there are people you just post what you want and they'll do all the work. Thats all. The more defined you can make a scenario the more likely someone will create it for you. But no matter what no one will be left out. They may have to do some work themselves.
The easiest way to do a scenario is to load one into the editor, save as "your scenario name" and then edit this save. Hopefully a lot of the work will carry over (Ship and unit data bases)
None of the offical scenarios are complete yet. But as the OB's become more solid future scenarios get easier to do. And then there are always people who have scources they prefer that might differ from the ones that create offical scenarios. So these people might use the offical scenario only they do a little pre game editing first.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
For Discussion.
Technically, I guess no vote was called. But it seemed pretty
obvious that you were an "against" and I was a "for".
I know Scenarios are a lot of work to create. They are less
trouble to modify, but it still takes work. And I realize that 2by3
has a limited amount of time and resources to invest in the project.
My point was that they would have better "out of the box" sales
potential if game buyers of all tastes felt there was something in it
for them. Personally, I'll probably stick to the Historical Scenarios
(and undoubtedly nit-pick the designer's choices), but I thought if
the game also offered a more "balanced" version of the scenarios the
appeal would be broader. Just adding a version of the already designed
scenarios with a stronger Japanese OB isn't really asking a great deal.
The hard work was in the initial scenario design. The real effort in
implementing my suggestion would be in designing the "story-line" that
would determine what OB changes to make in scenarios as the war
progressed. That would take some time and design effort I admit.
So forgive me if I continue to think that Matrix would benefit from
a broader scenario choice. And I won't argue with you that it would
call for some additional effort on their part. I'm sure I'll be among those
who play around with the scenario designer to correct what I see as problems, and I'm glad that it appears the game will offer a strong one.
And I will continue to look forward to your "insights" into the game as
it developes. I enjoy reading your posts more than any others as they
give the rest of us a glimpse of the games progress, and how the designers are dealing with various choices.
obvious that you were an "against" and I was a "for".
I know Scenarios are a lot of work to create. They are less
trouble to modify, but it still takes work. And I realize that 2by3
has a limited amount of time and resources to invest in the project.
My point was that they would have better "out of the box" sales
potential if game buyers of all tastes felt there was something in it
for them. Personally, I'll probably stick to the Historical Scenarios
(and undoubtedly nit-pick the designer's choices), but I thought if
the game also offered a more "balanced" version of the scenarios the
appeal would be broader. Just adding a version of the already designed
scenarios with a stronger Japanese OB isn't really asking a great deal.
The hard work was in the initial scenario design. The real effort in
implementing my suggestion would be in designing the "story-line" that
would determine what OB changes to make in scenarios as the war
progressed. That would take some time and design effort I admit.
So forgive me if I continue to think that Matrix would benefit from
a broader scenario choice. And I won't argue with you that it would
call for some additional effort on their part. I'm sure I'll be among those
who play around with the scenario designer to correct what I see as problems, and I'm glad that it appears the game will offer a strong one.
And I will continue to look forward to your "insights" into the game as
it developes. I enjoy reading your posts more than any others as they
give the rest of us a glimpse of the games progress, and how the designers are dealing with various choices.